Here are some interesting articles I’ve come across recently, for your consideration:
David Brooks thinks our culture tells us five crucial lies. He may be onto something. (New York Times)
A critical but friendly commentary on Lee Smolin’s new book: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution. In case you wanted more about the current mess in fundamental physics. (NPR)
Epictetus and the problem of philosophical progress. (3 Quarks Daily)
Socrates’ philosophy shows why moral posturing on social media is so darn annoying. (QZ)
A long and somewhat rambling article on why bioethicists are not doing enough to stem the new eugenics. Several good points, a recurring bad argument. See if you can spot it. (New Atlantis)
Philosophy as a Way of Life
Aren’t Brooks first and fifth lies at least partially related and at least partially embedded in modern capitalism?
Like
Socratic, they sure are!
Like
I disagree with Adam Frank’s critique of Smolin’s version of quantum realism. It’s only “hard” if you reject a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics from the start.
Like
Socratic, agreed. Interesting article nonetheless.
Like
On the Vox piece, I loathe the whole idea of “curating” as used by the modern social media world, including the social media-influenced version of media.
Liked by 1 person
Massimo, I grokked down to the end of the New Atlantis piece. I don’t know if this:
Is your recurring bad argument, but it IS a bad argument. Many bioethicists that I’ve read (Caplan popped immediately to mind) certainly don’t have morally frivolous records.
Like
Socratic, good point about Caplan. I was thinking of the author’s frequent use of the “yuck” argument. He never does explain what, exactly, is objectionable in the views he finds objectionable.
Like
Oh, here’s one back for you: The SJW world has now hit environmentalism. https://www.hcn.org/articles/recreation-5-reasons-to-keep-geotagging?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email
Like
Ahh, got it on that, on the “yuck” argument. And, while you say informal fallacies aren’t necessarily all that some crack them up to be, nonetheless … a classical fallacy of appeal to emotions!
Were you referring to the one I posted back as nonetheless interesting? The idea behind it is is … that environmentalism does itself have a race problem. I’ve never denied that. But, the anti-Instagramming of poppy tramplers and others that the SJW folks called out, and others, NONE of them linked any of this to race. I’ve subscribed to High Country News semi-regularly for 15-plus years, and this is likely a breaking point for me.
Liked by 1 person